TOKYO -- Data in a widely lauded stem-cell research paper was falsified, a Japanese government-funded laboratory said Tuesday, as the lead researcher accused of the malpractice denied any wrongdoing.

The research from the Riken Center for Development Biology in Kobe, western Japan, had been hailed as a possible breakthrough for growing tissue to treat illnesses such as diabetes and Parkinson's disease using a simple lab procedure.

But significant discrepancies in the "game-changing" research published in January in scientific journal Nature led a panel of scientists at Riken to conclude they stemmed from falsified data.

They said researcher Haruko Obokata, the lead author of the paper in Nature, had manipulated or falsified images of DNA fragments used in the research.

"The investigation committee has concluded that Ms. Obokata is responsible for manipulation and therefore for research malpractice," said Shunsuke Ishii, the Riken scientist who led the committee charged with investigating allegations the work was falsified.

In mid-March, Riken officials had weighed retracting the article over "discrepancies" in how the research article was prepared.

Obokata vehemently objected to the committee's findings.

"I was outraged and shocked by the committee's report," she said in a statement. "I cannot accept the finding, and I intend to make an appeal to Riken in coming days."

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has made greater gender equality and female advancement in the workforce a plank of his economic revival strategy for Japan. But the recognition of Obokata, a fashionable young woman, as a leading scientist still made waves in conservative, male-dominated Japan.

The dispute over the research is also a setback for government efforts to market Japan's research and development expertise as a 21st century industry needed to revitalize the country's manufacturing.

Juliette Savin, a spokeswoman for Riken, said that she could not comment on Obokata's employment status.

In a news conference, Riken's director Ryoji Noyori said that after allowing for an appeal, disciplinary action would be taken, including calling for retraction of the suspect paper.

"Research misconduct occurred due to a young researcher's lack of experience and awareness of the importance of research ethics," Noyori said.

But he also blamed a "lack of leadership" among researchers in a position to help Obokata, and a lack of mutual verification among research groups. He warned against any "personal attacks or violations of the human rights of the authors."

The institute said it would take months more to determine whether the stem cell findings are valid regardless of any questions about the data. Obokata asserts the findings are genuine.

The scientists investigating the case said three other co-authors of the papers had not falsified the data but were still "gravely responsible" for negligence in failing to fully verify the research findings. The discrepancies in the data showed up as anomalous lines in an image of DNA fragments.

In March Teruhiko Wakayama, a professor at Japan's University of Yamanashi who was part of the researcher team, said the study should be retracted.

Three authors of the paper had agreed to a retraction, Masatoshi Takeichi, head of RIKEN's Center for Developmental Biology, said at the time, but a final decision hinged on a consensus of all the authors and the journal itself.

Researchers in Boston and Japan conducted the experiments in using a simple procedure to turn ordinary cells from mice into stem cells by exposing cells from spleens of newborn mice to a more acidic environment than they are used to.

Cells from other tissue of newborn mice appeared to go through the same change if exposed to any of a variety of stressful situations, the researchers said.

Scientists hope to harness stem cells to replace defective tissue in a wide variety of diseases. Making stem cells from a patient would eliminate the risk of transplant rejection.

Yeah, things like this are becoming more and more of a problem. Also, fabricating polls have been a long standing problem. I was reading an article not long ago which even mentioned that so called "clinical studies, etc." should be questioned too.

As far as this article specifically, what a surprise. I couldn't imagine that a government funded agency would lie about anything, lol.

Here's some details on how so called facts are being presented in the modern age. I'll use gun control as a prime example, although these points apply to anything. For instance in the case of polls, a person or news agency, etc. can say, we took a poll from our viewers and 80% of those interviewed do NOT support gun control. 15% do and 5% are undecided. Well if the news agency that is saying that is Fox news, known to only be watched by right wingers, then that's no surprise.

Then you might see the same poll on CNN later that night and they claim their poll reveals that 45% do NOT support gun control, 50% do and 5% undecided. Well no surprise there either, CNN is watched by left wingers. Both channels will sell you their poll as fact, but the truth is, neither is correct. A LARGE poll of general Americans of no specific political affiliation would need to be done in order to have reliable numbers.

Now, clinical studies are getting more and more attention for being faked. In those cases, sometimes the studies are financed by corporations that want a specific result if you know what I mean, cough, cough. Like a "clinical study" done by Phillip Morris may reveal that smoking does NOT in fact cause lung cancer after all, lol.

So Phillip Morris could be interviewed in front of congress and they can HONESTLY say that "studies" show that cigarettes do not cause lung cancer. They're just not saying that it's their study, done by their clinics.

The details on how these things are done is endless, but you get the point. ALWAYS ask where someone is getting their so called facts when they present them. Whether it's a poll, graphs, charts, etc. A smart person who is also deceitful can make you believe ANYTHING with a few well presented so called facts. As has been done on this site by certain individuals in the past.

These points are cases where there is semi truth, like most polls, clinical studies, etc. However in a case like this article presents, where they create lies from thin air, all bets are really of then. At any rate, the point is be VERY careful what you believe these days.

There's an old saying that people still foolishly quote, believe NONE of what you hear and only half of what you see. That's old school. This is the age of making a sci fi movies on your computer at home. The saying needs to be updated to "Believe NONE of what you hear and NONE of what you see!"

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to azdesertsnake01 For This Useful Post: